Wasn't it also entirely misleading and fundamentally completely factually incorrect? I thought I read the ruling stating it was the commenting claiming that homosexuals are oriented towards young boys /aka pedophiliacs that was the basis for the ruling against WordTV. While yes there were other complaints like the ones dealing with McVety and his commentary on the gay pride parades the complaint that actually succeeded was the one based in making the smear about how gays are inherently pedophiles in nature (yes, this is a paraphrase, not verbatim, before someone tries to argue otherwise, and it is a fair paraphrase at that given what was actually said and the fact that it is a long standing myth about gays and especially gay males that they are inherently biased towards having sex with underage boys) because of their attraction towards young males (in McVety's eyes anyway).

So is it possible that the NP pulled the article because it was entirely misleading and false in its claims that it was anything to do with gay pride parades and McVety's comments about them that got the slap from the CAB? (I can't believe I am saying that about the NP, especially on an op-ed piece from them, but it is an alternate possibility) I mean I read Kay's column and it said nothing about the actual cited reason by the CAB for their ruling against WordTv, and it seems to me that claiming censorship was because of "y" and only citing "y" when the reality is that it was entirely because of "x" is misleading at the very absolute minimum and intentionally deceitful and arguably malicious at worst would be grounds for pulling even an op-ed piece.

I mean really, even for Kay this was not just weak and misleading but utter and complete nonsense. If he wants to take issue with pride parades and that, that's his right, but to argue this is what got WordTv slapped by the CAB when the ruling itself states the exact opposite, that the complaints regarding the commentaries on the pride parades did not breech CAB standards but the complaint regarding the linking of being gay to being prone to pedophilia did breech CAB standards and was the sole basis for the actions taken by CAB and in turn the actions taken by the host network of WordTv goes well beyond partisan spin and into the realms of utter fiction and dishonesty.

IOW, what Kay is doing is smearing the CAB and the host broadcaster with a false claim for the basis of their actions while covering up the true grounds for the ruling and the actions taken which I would argue most people would find far less controversial and arguable than the case Kay made in that oped piece. Really, I think Kay would find it much harder to make a credible defence for claiming being gay means you are more inclined towards pedophilia as unfair grounds for the actions taken by CAB and the network in question than in the case he made in that article, which is why I find it particularly disgusting and took the time to write this bit here about it.